All is Fair Game

Updates for 07/30/2009

July 30th, 2009 10:54 AM

For those of you who have interest in the Health Reform Bill (HR3200) I have posted a link below to the last version of that bill on this site below. Best I can figure this bill cost about a Billion dollars a page. Seems to me we are in the wrong profession. We need to get into writing bills.

The six bank subsidiaries of Security Bank Corporation, Macon, Georgia, were closed today by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. To protect the depositors, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with State Bank and Trust Company, Pinehurst, Georgia, to assume all of the deposits of the six bank subsidiaries of Security Bank Corporation.

The six banks involved in today's transaction are: Security Bank of Bibb County, Macon, GA, with $1.2 billion in total assets and $1 billion in deposits; Security Bank of Houston County, Perry, GA, with $383 million in assets and $320 million in deposits; Security Bank of Jones County, Gray, GA, with $453 million in assets and $387 million in deposits; Security Bank of Gwinnett County, Suwanee, GA, with $322 million in assets and $292 million in deposits; Security Bank of North Metro, Woodstock, GA, with $224 million in assets and $212 million in deposits; and Security Bank of North Fulton, Alpharetta, GA, with $209 million in assets and $191 million in deposits.

The six banks had a total of 20 branches, which will reopen during normal business hours beginning tomorrow as branches of State Bank and Trust Company. Depositors of the six banks will automatically become depositors of State Bank and Trust Company. Deposits will continue to be insured by the FDIC, so there is no need for customers to change their banking relationship to retain their deposit insurance coverage. Customers should continue to use their existing branches until State Bank and Trust Company can fully integrate the deposit records of the six failed banks.

Over the weekend, depositors of the six banks can access their money by writing checks or using ATM or debit cards. Checks drawn on the banks will continue to be processed. Loan customers should continue to make their payments as usual.

As of March 31, 2009, the six banks had total assets of $2.8 billion and total deposits of approximately $2.4 billion. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, State Bank and Trust Company will acquire $2.4 billion in assets. The FDIC will retain the remaining assets for later disposition.

The FDIC and State Bank and Trust Company entered into a loss-share transaction on approximately $1.7 billion of the six banks' assets. State Bank and Trust Company will share in the losses on the asset pools covered under the loss-share agreement. The loss-sharing arrangement is projected to maximize returns on the assets covered by keeping them in the private sector. The agreement also is expected to minimize disruptions for loan customers.

Customers who have questions about today's transaction can contact the FDIC as follows:

The phone numbers will be operational this evening until 9:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT); on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., EDT; on Sunday from noon to 6:00 p.m., EDT; and thereafter from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., EDT.

To assume all of the deposits and purchase assets from the FDIC as receiver, State Bank and Trust Company received a $300 million capital infusion from a group of 26 investors, led by Joseph Evans.

The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $807 million. State Bank and Trust Company's acquisition of all the deposits was the "least costly" resolution for the FDIC's DIF compared to alternatives. The failure of the six banks brings the nation's total number this year to 64, and the total for Georgia to 16. The last FDIC-insured institution to be closed in the state was First Piedmont Bank, Winder, on July 17, 2009.

We are going to clean up the entire world by ourselves>

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

Associated Press

Henry Waxman

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.